KrisK10

The term "mental" was a term I choose to use because I think it makes the distinction from "extra-mental", which Craig does use, more clear. I believe Craig uses the terms "extra-mental" and "visions". This is just semantics.

Kris

Toto

I am not sure of your point here. Craig is trying to use the NT as a historical source, and would prefer not to be forced to defend obvious fantasy like Stephen looking into the sky and seeing god himself. He wants to claim that some sightings of Jesus were phenomema that need a historical explanation.

I think the idea that these appearances were historical, as opposed to later literary invention, is highly suspect.

KrisK10

Toto,

Your missing the point. I too think the post-Pauline-conversion appearances (noted in my opening post) are all literary inventions (even though I think some of the pre-Pauline-conversion appearances were originally based in real life hallucinations and dreams that were then later legendized). The question at hand is, does the NT differentiate between extra-mental appearances up to and including Paul's conversion appearance, and mental appearances after? If it does, Craig's point is that this distinction is unexplainable if the appearance traditions were never based on anything more than hallucinations/dreams because in this case, why weren't all of the post-Pauline-conversion appearances legendized into extra-mental events just like all of those that occurred earlier were?

Kris

andrewcriddle

It may be worth noting that there are apparently puzzling discrepancies between the accounts in Acts 9, Acts 22 and Acts 26 as to just what Paul's companions did and did not experience.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

Craig is constructing a slippery, legalistic argument for treating the "extra-mental" appearances as evidence. It doesn't really work.

Why weren't all of the post-Pauline-conversion appearances turned into extra-mental events? (Note that Stephen's vision is pre-conversion.)

It is very important to Craig's argument to claim that the earliest appearances were not "hallucinations." He has deliberately chosen this word, rather than "visions" as part of his debating strategy. He wants to prove that there is a modern materialist basis for his faith, or at least give modern scientifically minded people a rationalization for their belief.

But - visions of Jesus were and are common among Christians, up to this day. I would suggest that visions of Jesus were the norm, which moderns would interpret as "mental." But at some time in the second century, when the spirtual Jesus was historicized, the gospel writers felt the need to add a few "extra-mental" episodes, along with claims that they were witnessed by many people, as part of their invention of the historical basis for Christianity. For all we know, the "mental" appearances of Jesus were part of the earliest tradition, and the "extra-mental" were much later additions. The Revelation of John could not have been written much earlier than Luke, if at all, under the standard dating.

"Hallucination" is a modern word, useful to those of us who know that events inside one's head need not have any basis in reality. In the ancient world, Christians would not necessarily have discounted visions as hallucinations. But Craig is somehow lacking in that sort of faith.

KrisK10

Toto,

Thanks for the correction on Stephen's vision being pre-Paul-conversion!

So if I understand you correctly, you agree that the NT differentiates between extra-mental appearances up to and including Paul's conversion, and those after being only in the mind of the percipient. And, again if I understand you correctly, you think that differentiation is simply the result of the earliest hallucinations being legendized and those later not being so legendized?

Kris

Toto

I would not include Paul's visions as "extra-mental." In one version, people saw the bright light, but did not hear voices, in another they heard the voices, but did not see the light. Acts has little pretense here of a verifiable extra-mental event.

I do not think that the earliest visions were legendized - they were always visions. I think that some of the gospel writers constructed stories where Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form, but I see no reason to think that they even thought that they were writing history.

Note that Mark (also John) has a few appearances to individuals that could have been mental; Matthew has Jesus appearing to groups of disciples, and Luke ups the ante and has Jesus talking to groups of disciples and eating fish with them and showing off his wounds.

Summary of post-resurrection appearances

Is there any indication of a historical basis to any of this? There was nothing to legendize. Only in William Lane Craig's fertile imagination is there anything that need to be explained.

KrisK10

Thanks as always for your opinion Toto! --- Kris

Doug Shaver

OK. This seems to be a time when I put 2 and 2 together and got 22. I didn't recall his crediting anybody else in the article that I read, and I hadn't seen that hypothesis in any other apologetic sources I'd come across.

Doug Shaver

I think all it means is that whatever he thought an appearance was, it happened to everybody else that it happened to before it happened to him.